Army officer sentenced to four years for desertion after joining the French Foreign Legion.

LTC (Join to see) I would answer with Bergdahl . Of course though the investigation has been complete since October, there has yet to be a decision on a Courts Martial. At this point he's even entitled to some three hundred thousand in back pay...... I see these two incidents as miles apart. One deserving of some consideration regarding mitigating factors, the other deserving none.

SSG (Join to see), I don't see how a POW swap is anything similar to sentencing an admitted deserter to prison time. Bergdahl may yet have his day in court martial. Perhaps think of it this way; do you think anyone is encouraged to desert because of Bergdahl's example? His way was a good method to make oneself short a head.

There is significant double-speak going on around the Bergdahl case. Ironically, some of the people who stand behind the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown case are the same who cry out against the Bergdahl case. He has not been charged; that alone seems like a pretty good reason to be entitled to years of back pay, SSG Gerhard S.. You've passed judgment when you haven't been presented all the evidence. That isn't a fair system.

Anyway, I have yet to see an argument about why Bergdahl is some poster-child for desertion with impunity.

I have to wonder, a Service-member who doesn't trust the military or governmental systems must recognize that they are in the wrong line of work, right?

[~273I MAJ Ryan K.] I am not attempting to pass judgment on, Bergdahl, but most credible accounts lead to willful desertion, and possibly collusion, not to one of our allies, but rather to the enemy at his front in a theater of war, leaving his post unguarded and his comrades in danger with a gap in their perimeter. THAT is where the similarities begin, but without many of the mitigating factors in the case regarding this post. I wonder if the same people will call for restitution of the cost of Bergdahl's, sum of military training, and civil liability for any possible deaths that resulted from his search. (If found guilty).

Regarding your last statement sir, as in most matters governmental, the military is no different in its inefficiencies, and ineffectual bureaucratic nature when it comes to dealing with its personnel, particularly on a psychological level. Many Americans have reason to distrust their government, from those who have been drafted into service (Vietnam) against their will (that's in league with slavery), and then tossed out on their own with PTSD and other maladies, to those who were betrayed by the VA System at Walter Reed and other facilities, to those, who even more recently have been put on secret waiting lists while they suffered or died. Men and Women in the military tend to have a special trust with their peers, and with their immediate chain of command, but are not unwise to be wary of the bureaucracies that lie above, that can force them out onto the street, or into senseless missions based on the whims of politicians.

I could point to the "sick call" system that had me repeatedly going to TMC for fever, sinus congestion, sore throat and ear ache, to see a Sp4 leaf through a protocol book repeatedly prescribing throat lozenges, pseudophed, and Tylenol to treat my symptoms without ever taking a throat culture, or bloodwork.

Finally after 10 days if these increasingly worse symptoms (3 visits to TMC), without ever being seen by a doctor, nurse, or PA. I could no longer eat, or breathe through my nose, my balance was off, and I developed a bulge in my forehead from the sinus congestion. The only way to avoid the TMC was to wait until it closed and get a cab ride to the hospital where I was diagnosed with Strep throat, and viral infections in my ear and sinuses that required 10 days in the hospital and caused my ear drum to separate and fall out. The Charge of quarters told me I had to wait till morning and go to the TMC, and my chain of command chided me for not returning to the TMC and for going to the hospital without approval from the TMC. Clearly there were flaws in the system, and people CAN fall through the cracks. I hope this TMC issue has since been resolved. The Lieutenant we're speaking of believed there were still some cracks to fall through regarding his situation. I've never claimed he should not face consequences for his actions, only that there ARE extenuating circumstances that perhaps should have been allowed to be aired in court, of course that might have led to some uncomfortable questions about those "cracks ". My opinion, respectfully.

TSgt Joshua Copeland, I tend to agree with you. Without having read the judge's opinion, I suspect that the sentence was relatively light because of the mitigating circumstance (mental health) and the favorable testimony (the French General and the U.S. Army doctor).

Whether or not his conduct is theft is another matter. I doubt that, legally, it qualifies as theft.

LTC (Join to see), I used the theft as an analogy more then an actual charge against him.

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM, In an editorial written by his parents shortly after his departure from the country, his father promised to make restitution to the taxpayers for the costs of their son's education.

Restitution is good but restitution is the responsibility of the officer and not the father.

COL Jason Smallfield, I must agree to your post. As the Lt. must take reasonability for his actions or in-action in this case, he should be made to make restitution not daddy deep –pockets.
Lt. Frank’s father could pay the dollar amount, but Mr. Franks can’t repair the honor, dignity, and Patriotism back to The Gray Line, or the institution as a whole.

SFC (Join to see), what changes would you make to convince more SMs to self-identify as mental-illness sufferers?

It starts with reducing the stigma and keeping certain information private between as few parties as possible. Its like the old saying, "three can keep a secret if two are dead." It works the same as Sexual Assaults and EO. Theres no integrity in some of these programs. Once a complaint is made or someone seeks help, regardless of how minor or major it is, the perception is overwhelming and Soldiers personal life spreads like a wildfire. Within my section I have fostered an environment that is more of a brotherhood than just some co-workers on a nine to five. With the trust and confidence in eachother, Soldiers are willing to speak up or step in when somethings not right. However, not every leader is the same and not every leader will be the same. I have found ways to cope and show empathy on a personal level without getting too personal. Im not the NCO out with my Soldiers on the weekends. Social media is another tool that could help alleviate this. One of the main reasons I started facebook was to check in on my Soldiers' status' without impeding on their private life or letting them in on mine. I made sure they knew my intentions and why I was adding them as a "friend" on facebook and they agreed. Even when they knew I was watching, they couldnt resist saying what was on their mind and "airing out their dirty laundry." This proved to be a very powerful tool during OEF deployments. Although this could work on a case by case basis, it's a start. As far as total Army? We need to have more knowledge. Medication can worsen suicidal thoughts. Going back to the unit with whispers behind a Soldiers back can have a truely negative effect. Privacy is key and its a need to know. But those that need to know are quite a few people in the Support Channel and Chain of Command. Someone is bound to say something to someone who doesnt need to know. Its human nature I guess. More training? Maybe take diferent approaches. Death by power point isn't much fun. When I first arrived to Bragg, for example, a bit off topic but it applies, my Brigade had a mandatory Financial managment class ran through the ACS for all incoming personnel. The result was far less financial issues amongst young Soldiers and far less AER loan requests and phone calls to the Commander for missed Star Card payments. New Commander came in and it went away. Now it is overwhelming how many Soldiers need financial help. Maybe a course of action such as this, could help alleviate the rising issue. Better medical processes in place not only for cureent servicemembers but our former members with the VA as well. This is the type of program that would take a few clear concise minds to sit down and plan out for the best result.

SFC (Join to see), sharing mental health information with unprivileged parties is a HIPAA violation and should be reported. If a commander violates HIPAA, he or she can, and should, be relieved.

What do you mean "the perception is overwhelming"?

Yes Sir, you are right. I wasn't trying to say that these Commanders or well, any leader that has this information, is talking about it to those that don't need to know on purpose. I was just insisting that sometimes it happens. Even behind closed doors, walls are thin and a orderly clerk, for example, could potentially over hear.

What I meant by "the perception is overwhelming'' was a misuse of words. What I meant is that some people gossip. They live off of it. If they see something, their minds percieve it a different way without having all the facts. Having that information, to some, is overwhelming and they seem to talk to friends about what they "saw" or what they "think is happening." And without facts, falisy spreads like a wildfire.

SSG Gerhard S., not sure if you follow DoctrineMan!, but that was his argument; return to duty.

I have my own doubts as to whether RTD would work in this scenario. How could such a stigmatized person lead and be respected? Maybe he could.

MAJ Ryan K. I have no doubt he would face great hurdles. I would only point out that he was clearly able to function, and was highly respected in the Legion. It is likely that the "stigma" would be a greater hurdle than his ability to function, even in a leadership position.

Great points@! CW3 (Join to see)

I understand your point, Cpl Charles Vadnais, about needing help. The problem is that he didn't even seek help, he didn't even try to let the system work because he was worried about "overmedication."

As for his legal "mental state," he knew that he was deserting; he admitted that in court. Also, ignorance of the law is no defense.

You're right, he did deploy. We can't call him a coward, but he swore to serve the United States and he ended up serving France and the UN.

Also, prior to joining FFL, he already had three under his belt. I thought that was a petty statement as well. He obviously was not afraid to deploy again but instead was just trying to feed a need. In fact it seemed he couldnt deploy soon enough for his liking so it was one of the reasons he took off to join the FFL.

Don't our politicians seat a similar oath to support and devens the Constitution, and then violate that oath every day, absent ANY legal consequences?

SSG Tim Everett, is he of future utility to the military or damaged goods?

SSG Gerhard S., hypothetically, what would a legislator do that would violate the Constitution?

SSG Tim Everett Good point, though it could be argued that he was already damaged goods, and he admittedly would likely have killed himself given enough time. Additionally, though he WAS damaged goods he was a lauded, respected, and desired member of the Legion. The man had already deployed 3x if I recall correctly, and was a West Point Grad. I'm not saying he'd work out, only suggesting that it is an option that is worth exploring, particularly following all the nonsense of returning Bo Berghdahl back to active duty after actually defecting to the ENEMY.

LTC (Join to see) I'm not ignoring you Sir, I hope to get back to you more comprehensively with some answers, NOT in the hypothetical... No need to go hypothetical when plenty of ACTUAL examples exist and I don't want to short change your question.

SSG Gerhard S. I am not a politician so I cannot comment on what they do that might be illegal. It's one thing to suspect, it's another to have proof. Congress is not the military, which is where my background is.

LTC (Join to see) with regard to this service member's utility, I think that's irrelevant -- he committed a crime, and he KNEW what he was doing was wrong. He went AWOL, deserted, and people thought he had died. The only differences in this guy and Bowe Bergdahl are the rank and intent. This guy should get his court martial, get his day in court, and then face sentencing. If this had been a private, he'd probably already be in Leavenworth. I don't, and will not, countenance this guy being allowed to finish out his minimum eight years or whatever it is they require of officers.

At best, he could receive light sentencing and be used as a case study on how to deal with suicidal veterans. As an E1 wearing orange, or as a civilian.

One does not have to go very far to see where our politicians have violated their oath to support and defend our Constitution. The Congressional oath is as follows.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Notice the oath also reads " that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

So, when Congress creates a Post office as they are allowed to do, but then gives the USPS a monopoly on the delivery of First class mail, they are acting unconstitutionally.

When the President.... When the Senate fails to approve a budget by April 15th of each year as required by the constitution, they are acting unconstitutionally. When both houses of congress fund the government on "continuing resolutions" instead of passing these required budgets they are acting unconstitutionally. Furthermore, when the President sings those CR's HE is acting unconstitutionally.

The government of the US is tasked with promoting the "General Welfare". Which means they are required to act "generally", that is to pass laws that apply equally to all States, in general, and none in particular, or to no group of States in particular. It means they are required to pass laws that apply equally to commerce, and to corporations, and to people. So, when congress passes bills, and when the President signs them, that give special favors to certain States, or to groups of States, or to certain corporations, or industries, or to certain people or to certain groups of people, they are acting unconstitutionally. So, by giving the USPS a monopoly on first class mail they are NOT acting generally, and are violating one of the basic tenets of the Constitution.

When the President, any president sends troops to war, and then keeps them there without a declaration by Congress both congress and the President are in violation of the Constitution, and dig themselves in even further by funding undeclared military actions on, or off-budget.

When the Federal government passes laws, and continue to renew them time and again, that run counter to the fourth amendment such as the Patriot Act, they are acting unconstitutionally.
When a President repeatedly declares that the Senate is "out of session" when the Senate itself says it was not, and then uses that opportunity to make Federal appointments absent the required Senate approval, that person is acting unconstitutionally.

When the Federal courts attempt to make, or change laws through judicial review, they are acting unconstitutionally. Article III Sections 1 and 2 outlines the powers allowed the court, and can be found here (It's a short read.) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

When the Federal government has over 70 Armed police agencies to enforce Federal crimes they are clearly overstepping their bounds. Consider that Article I Section 8 only enumerates a few Federal crimes including counterfeiting, piracy (crimes on the high seas) and treason. Of course, somehow there are now nearly 5000 federal crimes and hundreds of thousands of other regulations that are treated as laws. Clearly, this is not how Congress, or the President should "bear true faith and allegiance" to the constitution.

Madison told us "“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”
― James Madison
When the US perpetually maintains, and funds an entire army at it's disposal when the Constitution only allows for it to maintain a Navy, they are acting unconstitutionally and giving the President access to a ready force to utilize with very little consideration. Keep in mind that the Army was to come from the States Militias and had to be released for Federal duty by the various States Governors, requiring careful consideration by not just the President, but by the Governors of the "many States".

Madison tells us “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
― James Madison

The point to all this is simply to illustrate that our Politicians serially act Unconstitutionally, every day. This is not to say that we shouldn't be doing some of these things (I don't think we should) but only that if we want to give the Federal government such powers there are two Amendment processes listed in the constitution to do so. They are both listed in Article V and describe how to add such powers to the Constitution, through the amendment process, provided the required number of votes in congress, and approval of the appropriate number of States is achieved.

So, let us never forget that the Constitution exists to define and limit the powers of the Federal Government. That the framers enumerated the powers the Federal government was to engage in, and to make sure there was no question on the matter they nailed it home with the 10th amendment which tells us that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

One has to consider how all these unconstitutional actions are allowed to pass on a daily basis. One would think that someone, in one of the branches of government would call these violators to task.... Clearly, one of two things MUST be true. Either NONE of them realize they are violating the constitution, and their oath to protect and defend it, OR, ALL of them realize they are violating the constitution and their oaths, and are content to say nothing about anybody else's violations in fear of being called out themselves.

CPT Jack Durish, desertion during war time is punishable by death. The judge likely refused to admit medical testimony because there is no medical defense to desertion (maybe insanity is a defense).